On Sat, 2020-09-26 at 09:17 -0500, Tony Asleson wrote:

On 9/26/20 3:40 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:

quoted

Hello!

On 25.09.2020 19:19, Tony Asleson wrote:

quoted

Signed-off-by: Tony Asleson <redacted>
Signed-off-by: kernel test robot <redacted>
---
  drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c | 2 +-
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c b/drivers/ata/libata-

scsi.c
index 194dac7dbdca..13a58ed7184c 100644

--- a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c
+++ b/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c

@@ -1086,7 +1086,7 @@ int ata_scsi_dev_config(struct scsi_device

*sdev, struct ata_device *dev)
      return 0;
  }
  -int ata_scsi_durable_name(const struct device *dev, char *buf,
size_t len)
+static int ata_scsi_durable_name(const struct device *dev, char
*buf,
size_t len)

   Why not do it in patch #6 -- when introducing the function?

This issue was found by the intel kernel test robot in v4 patch
series. I thought it was better to have a separate commit with the
correction that matched it's signed off.  Maybe that's not the
correct approach?

No ... while a patch is being reviewed the purpose of review is to make
it better by folding in all the comments.  It then gets a changelog put
below the 

---

v5: made X function static

So people can follow how it has evolved.  This is all actually
described in Documentation/submitting-patches.

James